In July/August 2018 the independent Australian Medical Research Advisory Board (AMRAB) conducted a national consultation to inform the development of the second set of Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Australian Medical Research and Innovation Priorities (Priorities) for 2018-2020.

AMRAB was interested in hearing reflections on the first set of MRFF Priorities and how the next set of Priorities should extend or reset the direction of the MRFF. They sought views on a number of specific questions:

1. Are there any outstanding Priorities from 2016-2018 that need to be extended or re-emphasised?2. What are the unaddressed gaps in knowledge, capacity and effort across the healthcare continuum and research pipeline?3. What specific priority or initiatives can address any of the above deficits?4. How can current research capacity, production and use within the health system be further strengthened through the MRFF?5. Free text commentary with reference to the Discussion Paper.

"SA Health recognises the important role of health and medical research in driving advances in health care delivery, policy and decision making and delivering significant benefits to the broader community.

South Australia is investing strongly in the Health and Biomedical Precinct in the West End of Adelaide, built on a strong partnership between the:

South Australian Government

South Australian universities

South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute (SAHMRI)

private sector.

It is imperative, therefore, that SA Health is able to identify the value proposition of health and medical research, and to establish appropriate strategic priorities that can inform further activity to foster a strong and innovative health and medical research sector in South Australia."

The final Research Focus 2020 document is expected to be released in mid-2017.

To inform its submission to the Structural Review of the NHMRC's Grant Program the HSRAANZ undertook an online survey of health services researchers’ views on the three possible alternative models to the existing grant program. The survey was completed by 50 individuals: 18 SRs (36%), 11 MCRs (22%), and 21 ECRs (42%). The responses were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively to inform the responses to the consultation questions.

Summary of key messages from HSRAANZ survey respondents A consistent theme within respondents’ qualitative feedback was the inability to provide an informed opinion on the relative advantages of the three alternative models. The lack of detail within the Consultation Paper was noted as a major concern for many individuals, with many suggesting there is need for modelling or evidence on the advantages of each approach (Box 4). This lack of detail may have also led to some respondents’ belief that these alternative models are similar to the existing NHMRC structural approaches and will not achieve change. Furthermore, individuals reported some difficulty in determining the differences between the models; this was evidenced in the number of individuals who could not easily allocate rankings across the three models.

Overall, Alternative Model 1 was ranked first in the following four NHMRC objectives: reduce grant preparation time; encourage ECR and MCR progress; balance safe and innovative research; and provide opportunity across career stages. Alternative Model 3 was also ranked first in the four NHMRC objectives: reduce grant review times; balance health and medical research; provide funding support for health service research; and encourage translation of health service research into policy and practice. It is important to note, that Alternative Model 2 was not ranked first in any of the reviewed NHMRC objectives.

There was also conflicting feedback on the value of each structural approach in relation to achieving a balance between ECR, MCR and SR career stages. This balance was also discussed in relation to the size of the applicants’ research institutions; with those SRs within large centres likely to receive an inequitably higher proportion of research funds, while ECRs within smaller teams less likely to benefit from the opportunity to participate in applications.

Submission to the Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research - Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand.

Submission to the Strategic Review of Health and Medical Research - Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand.

Celebrating the Achievements of Health Services Research in Australia and New Zealand 2001-2011

This publication represents the tangible celebration of the 10th anniversary of the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand. Bringing together a set of papers looking back over the past 10 years in terms of both research and policy seems a fitting means of commemoration for an Association whose purpose is to facilitate communication across researchers, and between researchers and policymakers, to promote education and training in health services research, and to ensure sustainable capacity in health services research in Australia and New Zealand.

Facilitating Access to Routine Data for Research Benefiting Australian People

National health reform needs strategic investment in health services research

Jane P Hall and Rosalie C Viney

Med J Aust 2008; 188 (1): 33-35.

Abstract

With new funding for the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) to provide an evidence base for policy and practice reform, it is timely to revisit Australia’s recent experiences with health services research and policy development.

We provide a broad review of the contribution of Australian health services research to the development of health policy over the past 20 years.

We conclude that three preconditions are necessary to influence policy:

The conclusions of a web-based survey was administered to members of the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand (HSRAANZ) and delegates of the HSRAANZ's Third Health Services Research and Policy Conference.